Why not eat below BMR?
Replies
-
This is an incredibly terrible analogy. Completely nonsensical.
different things work for different people. different ways of explaining reach different people. Youre incredibly nice though. Totally made me want to read beyond that line.
:drinker:0 -
It's better for me to look at weekly averages rather than get too focused on each day. I'd personally rather go slightly under several days and eat a maintenance cals for a day every week or so than get burned out on routine of hitting it on the dot every day.
One thing you might look at to stay healthy with it is your body measurements, not just your weight loss number. For instance, I see that in "fatty" areas, I've losing a couple inches in the first couple months, but in muscle areas in a couple places, I've gained 1/2" each. To me, this means I'm gaining muscle and losing fat at this point. If that changes, I need to re-evaluate what I'm doing.
I liked the challenge of this article when I was asking the same question last week. Good to keep asking the right questions whether or not there are definitive answers yet. http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html0 -
This is an incredibly terrible analogy. Completely nonsensical.
different things work for different people. different ways of explaining reach different people. Youre incredibly nice though. Totally made me want to read beyond that line.
:drinker:
Your analogy is fundamentally flawed in a way that makes it make no sense whatsoever. You're ignoring the fact that the human body has a massive fuel source in body mass that's much larger than the amount of food you can consume.
If you "ran out of gas" when the energy from food ran out, then you wouldn't be able to run a calorie deficit, period. The point of a calorie deficit is so that you empty the "tank" and force your body to start consuming its own "reserve" mass.0 -
I am making a huge mistake by jumping into this analogy nonsense. But neither make sense.
It's more like you have a huge tank full of crude oil and miniature refinery that is powered by gasoline. You put gas in the small tank, but if you only put enough for driving, and not enough to "turn on" the refinery, you'll never convert and burn the crude oil that you've got in your tank.
sigh. I await your picking-apart my analogy.0 -
"The point of a calorie deficit is so that you empty the "tank" and force your body to start consuming its own "reserve" mass."
Exactly what my doctor said. He said that in the short term, dieting every now and then 100 or 150 below the goal MFP is showing should not be an issue for most people wanting to lose weight.0 -
I am making a huge mistake by jumping into this analogy nonsense. But neither make sense.
It's more like you have a huge tank full of crude oil and miniature refinery that is powered by gasoline. You put gas in the small tank, but if you only put enough for driving, and not enough to "turn on" the refinery, you'll never convert and burn the crude oil that you've got in your tank.
sigh. I await your picking-apart my analogy.
What's the real-world analog of "turning on the refinery"? It's like you're saying we need to reserve some calories - BMR - in order to activate fat consumption. Even if that were true, that's not what BMR is at all.0 -
analogies are like apples and pears... you can eat the peel.0
-
Yes, the calories above BMR that prevents your body from adapting itself.0
-
This is an incredibly terrible analogy. Completely nonsensical.
different things work for different people. different ways of explaining reach different people. Youre incredibly nice though. Totally made me want to read beyond that line.
:drinker:
Your analogy is fundamentally flawed in a way that makes it make no sense whatsoever. You're ignoring the fact that the human body has a massive fuel source in body mass that's much larger than the amount of food you can consume.
If you "ran out of gas" when the energy from food ran out, then you wouldn't be able to run a calorie deficit, period. The point of a calorie deficit is so that you empty the "tank" and force your body to start consuming its own "reserve" mass.
While I think maybe we are both thinking about different things and situations, i think that you would have had me listening to you so much lightning faster and eager to talk to you (like I have always been until this week when you just were so callous and dismissive to me for the too manyeth time) if you had just found the ability to talk to other people around here without starting off with an insult.
Just saying.0 -
This is an incredibly terrible analogy. Completely nonsensical.
different things work for different people. different ways of explaining reach different people. Youre incredibly nice though. Totally made me want to read beyond that line.
:drinker:
Your analogy is fundamentally flawed in a way that makes it make no sense whatsoever. You're ignoring the fact that the human body has a massive fuel source in body mass that's much larger than the amount of food you can consume.
If you "ran out of gas" when the energy from food ran out, then you wouldn't be able to run a calorie deficit, period. The point of a calorie deficit is so that you empty the "tank" and force your body to start consuming its own "reserve" mass.
While I think maybe we are both thinking about different things and situations, i think that you would have had me listening to you so much lightning faster and eager to talk to you (like I have always been until this week when you just were so callous and dismissive to me for the too manyeth time) if you had just found the ability to talk to other people around here without starting off with an insult.
Just saying.
If you take criticism of an idea as a personal attack and insult, I can't help you. I'm not going to try to tiptoe around issues by placating people and telling them that they're good and worthwhile before criticizing a poor idea presented in a post. Sorry. If you don't like that, then just ignore me.0 -
If you take criticism of an idea as a personal attack and insult, I can't help you. I'm not going to try to tiptoe around issues by placating people and telling them that they're good and worthwhile before criticizing a poor idea presented in a post. Sorry. If you don't like that, then just ignore me.
Best advice you've ever provided!
With love,
Burt0 -
This is an incredibly terrible analogy. Completely nonsensical.
different things work for different people. different ways of explaining reach different people. Youre incredibly nice though. Totally made me want to read beyond that line.
:drinker:
Your analogy is fundamentally flawed in a way that makes it make no sense whatsoever. You're ignoring the fact that the human body has a massive fuel source in body mass that's much larger than the amount of food you can consume.
If you "ran out of gas" when the energy from food ran out, then you wouldn't be able to run a calorie deficit, period. The point of a calorie deficit is so that you empty the "tank" and force your body to start consuming its own "reserve" mass.
While I think maybe we are both thinking about different things and situations, i think that you would have had me listening to you so much lightning faster and eager to talk to you (like I have always been until this week when you just were so callous and dismissive to me for the too manyeth time) if you had just found the ability to talk to other people around here without starting off with an insult.
Just saying.
If you take criticism of an idea as a personal attack and insult, I can't help you. I'm not going to try to tiptoe around issues by placating people and telling them that they're good and worthwhile before criticizing a poor idea presented in a post. Sorry. If you don't like that, then just ignore me.
No no no I think you have a million genuine and extremely informational things to share with the community. However, you really dont want anyone to listen to you, which is why you love to start off everything with an insult to your audience's intelligence.
I dont want people to see you as one of the mean ones on the forums and stop listening to you, cause youre damn smart and they SHOULD listen to you very often.
I dont see it as a personal attack because you dont know me. I just balk when I look to you for more information and it starts off with pure unveiled disdain.
shrug.
you can put me on ignore too. Just wish you realized how helpful you are when you arent making people feel like they shouldnt even try to understand.0 -
If you take criticism of an idea as a personal attack and insult, I can't help you. I'm not going to try to tiptoe around issues by placating people and telling them that they're good and worthwhile before criticizing a poor idea presented in a post. Sorry. If you don't like that, then just ignore me.
Best advice you've ever provided!
With love,
Burt
retracts all my hottest guy on MFP votes and sporks you0 -
I'd love someone to answer the second part of OPs question about consuming vs. netting because it really confuses me. Is the conventional wisdom not to EAT less than BMR or not to NET less? I run a lot so a normal day burns 300- 600 calories. I never eat below my BMR, but often with exercise I will net below it. An outlier example is today- I ran 12 miles and burned at least 1000 cals....no way I can eat all that back!!
Help explain if its about netting or eating please!
Pathetically quoting myself because I'd love a clear explanation about the eating vs. netting issue....any thoughts?0 -
I'd love someone to answer the second part of OPs question about consuming vs. netting because it really confuses me. Is the conventional wisdom not to EAT less than BMR or not to NET less? I run a lot so a normal day burns 300- 600 calories. I never eat below my BMR, but often with exercise I will net below it. An outlier example is today- I ran 12 miles and burned at least 1000 cals....no way I can eat all that back!!
Help explain if its about netting or eating please!
Pathetically quoting myself because I'd love a clear explanation about the eating vs. netting issue....any thoughts?
Well if you don't exercise in a given day, your exercise will be zero and your net will equal what you ate.
For example, my BMR is about 172. Sedentary TDEE is 2050. I set my goal to sedentary TDEE minus 500 = 1550.
1550 is below BMR. On a day I don't exercise, I eat 1550. If I earn 250 calories exercising, I eat 1800 and still net 1550.
Works for me.0 -
I'd love someone to answer the second part of OPs question about consuming vs. netting because it really confuses me. Is the conventional wisdom not to EAT less than BMR or not to NET less? I run a lot so a normal day burns 300- 600 calories. I never eat below my BMR, but often with exercise I will net below it. An outlier example is today- I ran 12 miles and burned at least 1000 cals....no way I can eat all that back!!
Help explain if its about netting or eating please!
Pathetically quoting myself because I'd love a clear explanation about the eating vs. netting issue....any thoughts?
After a long run it's good to eat carbs to replenish your muscle glycogen stores. If you are doing so much physical activity as to potentially net less than your BMR, and if this is something you do on a frequent basis, you probably need to up your intake with more nutritionally dense foods. The sort of performance you're talking about - - running 12 miles - - is extremely demanding and draining on your body, and it would be important for you to eat those calories back. Additionally, if you're performing at that level of fitness already, you don't want a large calorie deficit. You're probably looking to shed fat and perform body recomposition - that is best accomplished with a narrow deficit and time.
Stated more simply, shoot to net no less than your BMR at the absolute minimum, and as has been observed, calibrate on the basis of your TDEE.
With love,
Burt0 -
I'd love someone to answer the second part of OPs question about consuming vs. netting because it really confuses me. Is the conventional wisdom not to EAT less than BMR or not to NET less? I run a lot so a normal day burns 300- 600 calories. I never eat below my BMR, but often with exercise I will net below it. An outlier example is today- I ran 12 miles and burned at least 1000 cals....no way I can eat all that back!!
Help explain if its about netting or eating please!
Pathetically quoting myself because I'd love a clear explanation about the eating vs. netting issue....any thoughts?
After a long run it's good to eat carbs to replenish your muscle glycogen stores. If you are doing so much physical activity as to potentially net less than your BMR, and if this is something you do on a frequent basis, you probably need to up your intake with more nutritionally dense foods. The sort of performance you're talking about - - running 12 miles - - is extremely demanding and draining on your body, and it would be important for you to eat those calories back. Additionally, if you're performing at that level of fitness already, you don't want a large calorie deficit. You're probably looking to shed fat and perform body recomposition - that is best accomplished with a narrow deficit and time.
Stated more simply, shoot to net no less than your BMR at the absolute minimum, and as has been observed, calibrate on the basis of your TDEE.
With love,
Burt
So if my TDEE is 2075 and my BMR is 1725, I should run a deficit of no more than 350 calories?0 -
I'd love someone to answer the second part of OPs question about consuming vs. netting because it really confuses me. Is the conventional wisdom not to EAT less than BMR or not to NET less? I run a lot so a normal day burns 300- 600 calories. I never eat below my BMR, but often with exercise I will net below it. An outlier example is today- I ran 12 miles and burned at least 1000 cals....no way I can eat all that back!!
Help explain if its about netting or eating please!
Pathetically quoting myself because I'd love a clear explanation about the eating vs. netting issue....any thoughts?
After a long run it's good to eat carbs to replenish your muscle glycogen stores. If you are doing so much physical activity as to potentially net less than your BMR, and if this is something you do on a frequent basis, you probably need to up your intake with more nutritionally dense foods. The sort of performance you're talking about - - running 12 miles - - is extremely demanding and draining on your body, and it would be important for you to eat those calories back. Additionally, if you're performing at that level of fitness already, you don't want a large calorie deficit. You're probably looking to shed fat and perform body recomposition - that is best accomplished with a narrow deficit and time.
Stated more simply, shoot to net no less than your BMR at the absolute minimum, and as has been observed, calibrate on the basis of your TDEE.
With love,
Burt
Hm, so what you're saying seems to be slightly different than the poster above, but if I'm understanding correctly you both feel that netting SUBSTANTIALLY less than BMR is the issue, not so much netting a bit under?
Burt, I completely agree about long runs and carbs, and I certainly eat MORE on those days, but usually only by 400-500 cals, not the full 1000+, know what I mean? But I certainly agree about properly refueling...honestly I'm just full at that point (and sometimes a bit queasy for an hour or so after I finish a run.)
Thanks for the suggestions fellas!0 -
I'd love someone to answer the second part of OPs question about consuming vs. netting because it really confuses me. Is the conventional wisdom not to EAT less than BMR or not to NET less? I run a lot so a normal day burns 300- 600 calories. I never eat below my BMR, but often with exercise I will net below it. An outlier example is today- I ran 12 miles and burned at least 1000 cals....no way I can eat all that back!!
Help explain if its about netting or eating please!
Pathetically quoting myself because I'd love a clear explanation about the eating vs. netting issue....any thoughts?
What most people seem to be concerned with is the net cal count. As in, "Don't net below your BMR or you will (insert negative word)". Some will tell you you absolutely MUST eat back your exercise cal, others will say no. Personally, I net below BMR and do not eat back exercise cal, but I'm also doing this in conjunction with a weight loss Dr. and I have more than enough stored energy (fat) to compensate.
It seems that some people get better results eating back the exercise cal, but then again, some don't. Conventional wisdom is far from wise (imho) and varies widely. If you are losing consistently at a net below BMR, and you feel good and your energy level is normal (for you), then keep doing what you're doing. But if you're a runner, you might consider trying to net at least your BMR to preserve your LBM. It really comes down to what works for you.0 -
okay, this really REALLY annoys me.
the theory is, that if you don't eat enough your body goes into catabolic state. well, yes. burning fat is 'catabolic'. but they usually mean muscle loss when they use this term. firstly, how bad would we have screwed up (evolutionary) if our bodies start to eat away at muscle, the second we don't get a meal in?
the science. when you eat below BMR, your body burns fat. simple. BUT, if you have a serious issue of starvation over a prolonged period, your body will THEN start to eat muscle, and reduce metabolic rate. but on a short term, it is fine. your body is more than able to cope. hell, low calorie diets have even been show to carry MASSIVE health benefits.
without boring you too much: your body cells can divide around 50 times (due to damage on the telomeres), before they die. when you cut your diet, your body stops replicating cells (which can lead to errors, like cancer), and instead starts to repair the cells. this can reduce a lot of cancer risk + others.
bottom line is this. whilst the sted-heads at the gym will tell you 'never miss a meal, your body will kill all muscle and the world will end', the science folk have found the opposite to be true.
if you are worried about energy levels? i find after not eating for 18 hours i am more alert and feeling awesome!!!.... try it guys.0 -
Hm, so what you're saying seems to be slightly different than the poster above, but if I'm understanding correctly you both feel that netting SUBSTANTIALLY less than BMR is the issue, not so much netting a bit under?
Burt, I completely agree about long runs and carbs, and I certainly eat MORE on those days, but usually only by 400-500 cals, not the full 1000+, know what I mean? But I certainly agree about properly refueling...honestly I'm just full at that point (and sometimes a bit queasy for an hour or so after I finish a run.)
Thanks for the suggestions fellas!
I'm just not sure why you would want to net below BMR at all. BMR, relative to your daily activity, is a pretty darned small number. If you're performing half-marathon level workouts, you will see much better results if you eat more. BMR shouldn't be in your vocabulary!
With love,
Burt0 -
I'd love someone to answer the second part of OPs question about consuming vs. netting because it really confuses me. Is the conventional wisdom not to EAT less than BMR or not to NET less? I run a lot so a normal day burns 300- 600 calories. I never eat below my BMR, but often with exercise I will net below it. An outlier example is today- I ran 12 miles and burned at least 1000 cals....no way I can eat all that back!!
Help explain if its about netting or eating please!
Pathetically quoting myself because I'd love a clear explanation about the eating vs. netting issue....any thoughts?
After a long run it's good to eat carbs to replenish your muscle glycogen stores. If you are doing so much physical activity as to potentially net less than your BMR, and if this is something you do on a frequent basis, you probably need to up your intake with more nutritionally dense foods. The sort of performance you're talking about - - running 12 miles - - is extremely demanding and draining on your body, and it would be important for you to eat those calories back. Additionally, if you're performing at that level of fitness already, you don't want a large calorie deficit. You're probably looking to shed fat and perform body recomposition - that is best accomplished with a narrow deficit and time.
Stated more simply, shoot to net no less than your BMR at the absolute minimum, and as has been observed, calibrate on the basis of your TDEE.
With love,
Burt
Hm, so what you're saying seems to be slightly different than the poster above, but if I'm understanding correctly you both feel that netting SUBSTANTIALLY less than BMR is the issue, not so much netting a bit under?
Burt, I completely agree about long runs and carbs, and I certainly eat MORE on those days, but usually only by 400-500 cals, not the full 1000+, know what I mean? But I certainly agree about properly refueling...honestly I'm just full at that point (and sometimes a bit queasy for an hour or so after I finish a run.)
Thanks for the suggestions fellas!
The problem is running too large a calorie deficit. The calorie deficit is based on TDEE and your food intake. That's it. BMR only factors into it as a way to help you calculate your TDEE.
Once you know TDEE, BMR has no relevance whatsoever. You want a moderate calorie deficit . 250-500 if you don't have a lot of weight to lose and 500-750 if you have a lot of weight to lose.0 -
Hm, so what you're saying seems to be slightly different than the poster above, but if I'm understanding correctly you both feel that netting SUBSTANTIALLY less than BMR is the issue, not so much netting a bit under?
Burt, I completely agree about long runs and carbs, and I certainly eat MORE on those days, but usually only by 400-500 cals, not the full 1000+, know what I mean? But I certainly agree about properly refueling...honestly I'm just full at that point (and sometimes a bit queasy for an hour or so after I finish a run.)
Thanks for the suggestions fellas!
I'm just not sure why you would want to net below BMR at all. BMR, relative to your daily activity, is a pretty darned small number. If you're performing half-marathon level workouts, you will see much better results if you eat more. BMR shouldn't be in your vocabulary!
With love,
Burt
Sedentary TDEE minus 500 calories, to create a 500 calorie deficit, is below BMR unless your BMR is over 2083 calories.0 -
Sedentary TDEE minus 500 calories, to create a 500 calorie deficit, is below BMR unless your BMR is over 2083 calories.
We agreed that I would ignore you. I really think it's for the best. I have no desire to debate with you or interact in any way, for that matter. I would explain this to you in further detail but it would be against the community guidelines. Perhaps you could review your conduct earlier in the thread if you are still unclear.
With love,
Burt0 -
Hm, so what you're saying seems to be slightly different than the poster above, but if I'm understanding correctly you both feel that netting SUBSTANTIALLY less than BMR is the issue, not so much netting a bit under?
Burt, I completely agree about long runs and carbs, and I certainly eat MORE on those days, but usually only by 400-500 cals, not the full 1000+, know what I mean? But I certainly agree about properly refueling...honestly I'm just full at that point (and sometimes a bit queasy for an hour or so after I finish a run.)
Thanks for the suggestions fellas!
I'm just not sure why you would want to net below BMR at all. BMR, relative to your daily activity, is a pretty darned small number. If you're performing half-marathon level workouts, you will see much better results if you eat more. BMR shouldn't be in your vocabulary!
With love,
Burt
Sedentary TDEE minus 500 calories, to create a 500 calorie deficit, is below BMR unless your BMR is over 2083 calories.
We agreed that I would ignore you. I really think it's for the best. I have no desire to debate with you or interact in any way, for that matter. I would explain this to you in further detail but it would be against the community guidelines. Perhaps you could review your conduct earlier in the thread if you are still unclear.
With love,
Burt
You don't need to respond, but I will respond to your posts as I see fit. Thanks.
You can certainly put me on ignore if for some reason this distresses you.0 -
You don't need to respond, but I will respond to your posts as I see fit. Thanks.
You can certainly put me on ignore if for some reason this distresses you.
Your character shines through as bright as a full moon on a cloudless night.
With love,
Burt0 -
You don't need to respond, but I will respond to your posts as I see fit. Thanks.
You can certainly put me on ignore if for some reason this distresses you.
Your character shines through as bright as a full moon on a cloudless night.
With love,
Burt
Rad, thanks.
So you're saying you should, for some reason, limit your calorie deficit based on TDEE minus BMR? Where's the logic there?
There's no reason to limit your calorie deficit for a given day to the value of TDEE-BMR. Run your reasonable deficit of 250-500 if you don't have a lot of weight to lose and let the numbers fall how they may. If your BMR is 1500 and your sedentary TDEE 1800, then it's 100% fine to set your calorie goal to 1400 and eat back exercise calories. On days you sit around all day you will eat 1400. On days you play tennis you will eat 1900, or whatever. That's fine. You'll be running a 400 calorie deficit a day, every day.0 -
bump0
-
I have often wondered about when you get a stomach staple and you can only eat a very small amount of food .your body doesn't go into starvation mode ,where does this come from the less you eat you would have to lose weight . they do ..
I've wandered through these forums and I see the idea of not eating below one's BMR touted as gospel. The usual line is that BMR is the minimum caloric needs of a body in order to function (the "if you were in a coma" line is often used). However, there is never any accompanying explanation as to why this number has any correlation to one's entrance into the dreaded starvation mode. The very reason we carry fat on our bodies is as fuel reserves for when we are not providing our body with adequate energy. If so, can someone point me to any scientific evidence that someone's body, if eating below BMR, will decide to catabolize its own organs instead of using fat reserves? It's actually quite counterintuitive in my eyes, and I'd love to learn what is behind this mechanism, if it exists.
As a corollary, for those who believe in the BMR as a baseline, there seems to be a conflict between those who believe that you simply need to eat enough calories to meet your BMR (regardless of any activity expenditure) versus those who say that one needs to at the least NET calories equivalent to BMR. Why does this conflict exist, if in fact, it is apparently unclear that BMR should even be seen as some sort of threshold?
Thanks in advance for the help on this! I could use it!0 -
I'd love someone to answer the second part of OPs question about consuming vs. netting because it really confuses me. Is the conventional wisdom not to EAT less than BMR or not to NET less? I run a lot so a normal day burns 300- 600 calories. I never eat below my BMR, but often with exercise I will net below it. An outlier example is today- I ran 12 miles and burned at least 1000 cals....no way I can eat all that back!!
Help explain if its about netting or eating please!
Pathetically quoting myself because I'd love a clear explanation about the eating vs. netting issue....any thoughts?
After a long run it's good to eat carbs to replenish your muscle glycogen stores. If you are doing so much physical activity as to potentially net less than your BMR, and if this is something you do on a frequent basis, you probably need to up your intake with more nutritionally dense foods. The sort of performance you're talking about - - running 12 miles - - is extremely demanding and draining on your body, and it would be important for you to eat those calories back. Additionally, if you're performing at that level of fitness already, you don't want a large calorie deficit. You're probably looking to shed fat and perform body recomposition - that is best accomplished with a narrow deficit and time.
Stated more simply, shoot to net no less than your BMR at the absolute minimum, and as has been observed, calibrate on the basis of your TDEE.
With love,
Burt
Hm, so what you're saying seems to be slightly different than the poster above, but if I'm understanding correctly you both feel that netting SUBSTANTIALLY less than BMR is the issue, not so much netting a bit under?
Burt, I completely agree about long runs and carbs, and I certainly eat MORE on those days, but usually only by 400-500 cals, not the full 1000+, know what I mean? But I certainly agree about properly refueling...honestly I'm just full at that point (and sometimes a bit queasy for an hour or so after I finish a run.)
Thanks for the suggestions fellas!
The problem is running too large a calorie deficit. The calorie deficit is based on TDEE and your food intake. That's it. BMR only factors into it as a way to help you calculate your TDEE.
Once you know TDEE, BMR has no relevance whatsoever. You want a moderate calorie deficit . 250-500 if you don't have a lot of weight to lose and 500-750 if you have a lot of weight to lose.
I really find the argument silly and non existent. And just to be blunt, I'm not even friends with the above person so I have no horse in this race so to speak, but the bolded part is correct. I'd use a percentage but that's sort of an aside to the point.
If you have a low TDEE due to low NEAT or EAT, you may in fact have to eat below BMR and if you're using a system where you eat back exercise calories and consequently eat less on rest days, you're very very likely going to be eating under BMR on rest days. And there's no real problem with that.
Now that being said, there are plenty of people who create too big of an energy deficit (which could be bad) but it looks like the poster above has already addressed that.
Create your deficit off of TDEE and make sure it's reasonable (20% is a reasonable starting point for most people)and whether or not it's below BMR on some days really does not matter if you did the underlined part correctly.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions